Move Card to Column

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description states the core behavior—moving a card—and adds the constraint that the card is moved "from triage." Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, such as whether the card is removed from its previous column automatically, or whether any notifications are triggered. This is a clear but not deeply transparent description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by a general usage statement. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name, though the second sentence adds only modest value beyond the first.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is adequate for a simple move operation, and the schema supplies all required parameter context. However, because there is no output schema and no mention of return behavior or error conditions, the description leaves some ambiguity about what happens after a successful move. It is not incomplete enough to fail, but it could be richer.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already explained in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the tool's overall purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not interfere.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: "Move a card from triage to a specific workflow column." It clearly conveys the action and the target, and the phrase "from triage" helps distinguish this from other card-moving tools like fizzy_send_card_to_triage and fizzy_move_card_to_not_now, though it does not name them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a general usage context: "Use this to transition cards through your workflow stages." It implies when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling move tools or state when not to use it. The schema's column_id description points to fizzy_get_columns, which helps, but the tool description itself lacks explicit routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.